Support NeoGAF

[sbkodama]

Conspiracy-Age in full force.

It goes both way.

 

[ultratruman]

Ah yes, the false flag attack take. So what's your theory? They bombed themselves? In the hopes of reversing their war fortunes?

"First of all, those photos are fake."

 

[JuanLatino]

Yes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-regime-dropped-chemical-bombs-on-civilians/

Conspiracy-Age in full force.

thats what i have to hear for more than 10-20 years now...

given the history of the US over the past decades - i can fully understand why people are skeptical & don't believe the western media in this cases

 

[BocoDragon]

I am still sceptical about the circumstances behind the sarin deaths. It does not make sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons once much less twice but everyone has accepted it on the pretext that Assad sprays chemical warfare routinely, cos reasons.

Bullshit.

Is this post from 2013 when Assad perpetuated a gas attack under Obama, or where were you then? Where you skeptical of the stories then? Why not? Why is it only "false flag!!!" when America attacks?

Be honest, did you think of this yourself, or did you get the idea from conspiracy social media posts, blogs, websites, etc?

The fact that this surrounds "Trump" means there is going to be a lot of conspiratorial fake news idiocy around it. Did we learn nothing from the election season??

 

[Joel Was Right]

Yes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-regime-dropped-chemical-bombs-on-civilians/

Conspiracy-Age in full force.

Actually, that report concluded both Daesh and the Syrian airforces used chemicals in attacks. The question is: did the Syrian airforce purposefully attack civilians with chemicals?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Actually, that report concluded both Daesh and the Syrian airforces used chemicals in attacks. The question is: did the Syrian airforce purposefully attack civilians with chemicals?

Why does Syria use chemicals in the first place, no matter against who?

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Russia says the airbase is massively damaged (Al Arabia)

This contradicts the official Syrian statement.

 

[ultratruman]

Actually, that report concluded both Daesh and the Syrian airforces used chemicals in attacks. The question is: did the Syrian airforce purposefully attack civilians with chemicals?

Sarin gas is 400 times more lethal than Chlorine, which has legitimate industrial uses. Use of Sarin in war has been explicitly illegal since the 90s, and in 2013 the Syrian government signed a treaty explicitly saying they wouldn't use it.

 

[Carpe Carnim]

I am still sceptical about the circumstances behind the sarin deaths. It does not make sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons once much less twice but everyone has accepted it on the pretext that Assad sprays chemical warfare routinely, cos reasons.

Bullshit.

Yeah, you're full of BS. Take your gut feelings and your insistence on running interference for Assad, back to whatever hole you've recently emerged from.

KTHXBAI

 

[FreedomFighter]

Just waking up to the news. Of course GAF never sleeps and there's already a 21 page thread.

Anyways, extremely reckless action by US. This hubris induced, Judge Dredd approach has to stop. Why couldn't we wait for the investigation?

 

[patapuf]

Actually, that report concluded both Daesh and the Syrian airforces used chemicals in attacks. The question is: did the Syrian airforce purposefully attack civilians with chemicals?

The problem with Gas weapons (and one reason why they are banned) is that "purposefully attacking" doesn't work, especially in cities.

 

[Sunster]

Actually, that report concluded both Daesh and the Syrian airforces used chemicals in attacks. The question is: did the Syrian airforce purposefully attack civilians with chemicals?

Wouldn't Daesh have claimed it?

Just waking up to the news. Of course GAF never sleeps and there's already a 21 page thread.

Anyways, extremely reckless action by US. This hubris induced, Judge Dredd approach has to stop. Why couldn't we wait for the investigation?

Well Trump made it seem like his action was to prevent further attacks. in other words, he considered the base an imminent threat to civilians.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Head of security in the Iranian Parliament : "Tehran and Moscow won't remain silent " (Iranian media)

Did Iran become the official spokesperson of Russia?

 

[Joel Was Right]

Is this post from 2013 when Assad perpetuated a gas attack under Obama, or where were you then? Where you skeptical of the stories then? Why not? Why is it only "false flag!!!" when America attacks?

Be honest, did you think of this yourself, or did you get the idea from conspiracy social media posts, blogs, websites, etc?

The fact that this surrounds "Trump" means there is going to be a lot of conspiratorial fake news idiocy around it. Did we learn nothing from the election season??

I was here in 2013 asking similar questions about the circumstances. I don't question whether chemicals were used, but rather whether they used to specifically target civilians: something that any reasonable person would question, especially considering the regime was threatened with military action by Western powers.

I want to be certain in my own mind, before accepting and agreeing to a war, of the details - details which hardly anyone knows or understands for that matter. There are people here who have accepted it purely on the pretext that Assad, a man who has led his country into a brutal war with little regard to his own people, has done the exact thing that would give the US a moral justification to launch a war. After Iraq, I need more than coincidence or vague reporting - which is what we have here.

If that makes me a conspiratorial figure as a result, go figure.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Conservatives and people on the Right already praising Trump for this. Suddenly being against Assad is morally justified--if only some people had thought so for the last 3-5 years.

 

[SomTervo]

Yep. This strike was serious. But so was using chemical weapons - once again - against non-combatants (I am not starting about the bombing of the hospital, because the US has an own track records when it comes to that).

I absolutely support the usage of military actions as a repressive measure to prevent further strikes of the regime with chemical weapons. Assad - and everyone supporting him - must know now that the next time he uses nerve gas against towns hold by rebels, his military force has to pay an even bigger price.

Yes, this could escalate, but the idea behind repressive measures isn't escalation but de-escalation.

You, just like Trump, are throwing diplomacy out with the bathwater. Of course bombing Assad's assets and weapons is a good idea by itself, especially because of the heinous acts committed in the last couple of weeks. If Syria were in a political bubble I'd condone it, too.

But diplomacy is what you're forgetting. It's the invisible spiderweb that reaches across the whole globe and connects all nations and countries. Pluck a thread here and your actions have far-reaching consequences, far beyond the thread you plucked (which you could pluck for totally sound reasons).

By doing this Trump just majorly compromised relations with Russia, Turkey, etc, etc.

Yes, bombing chemical weapon/military assets is a good thing to do, but not in the world's tightest diplomatic hot spot. Probably the densest diplomatic part of the web right now.

 

[Shiggy]

Actually, that report concluded both Daesh and the Syrian airforces used chemicals in attacks. The question is: did the Syrian airforce purposefully attack civilians with chemicals?

You're a real cynic if you're suggesting that they attacked they deployed chemical weapons and later bombed the hospital with the victims all by accident.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

I feel conflicted. Missiles being thrown around haphazardly is freaky for one thing, especially when Trump's the one with the button. I just really can't trust the guy and this is a reminder he can call something like this whenever he wants.

At the same time, use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and I'm kinda glad the international community is doing something about it, even if they're inevitably gonna fumble the fallout.

 

[Audioboxer]

I feel a little out of my depth commenting on this without much more reading, but I really don't get some of the WW3 posts, or the deflection around chemical weapons like there isn't something that needs to be done. Then again all the weird ass false flag comments from Trump supporters and some Democrats is only making me even more confused.

 

[Sunster]

You, just like Trump, are throwing diplomacy out with the bathwater. Of course bombing Assad's assets and weapons is a good idea by itself, especially because of the heinous acts committed in the last couple of weeks. If Syria were in a political bubble I'd condone it, too.

But diplomacy is what you're forgetting. It's the invisible spiderweb that reaches across the whole globe and connects all nations and countries. Pluck a thread here and your actions have far-reaching consequences, far beyond the thread you plucked (which you could pluck for totally sound reasons).

By doing this Trump just majorly compromised relations with Russia, Turkey, etc, etc.

Yes, bombing chemical weapon/military assets is a good thing to do, but not in the world's tightest diplomatic hot spot. Probably the densest diplomatic part of the web right now.

Turkey actually praised the bombing. But yea, I agree with post

 

[DieNgamers]

Conservatives and people on the Right already praising Trump for this. Suddenly being against Assad is morally justified--if only some people had thought so for the last 3-5 years.

Every "party" is FUCKED UP over there. It's a neverending circle of madness. More than enough people and families are suffering. The whole place needs a time machine that puts the area in an utopia-bubble...and that won't happen. Poor people.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar (and the jihadist rebels they paid for) finally got their wish with Trump.

Alternatively, this could be a token retaliation agreed upon prior with Russia to fake the message that the US is willing to stand up to them and respond to Assad.

Either way, this proxy war for gas and between Israel/Iran has been ridiculous from the start.

 

[old manatee]

This is really distracting me from the Trump Administration's ties to Russia.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I was here in 2013 asking similar questions about the circumstances. I don't question whether chemicals were used, but rather whether they used to specifically target civilians: something that any reasonable person would question, especially considering the regime was threatened with military action by Western powers.

I want to be certain in my own mind, before accepting and agreeing to a war, of the details - details which hardly anyone knows or understands for that matter. There are people here who have accepted it purely on the pretext that Assad, a man who has led his country into a brutal war with little regard to his own people, has done the exact thing that would give the US a moral justification to launch a war. After Iraq, I need more than coincidence or vague reporting - which is what we have here.

If that makes me a conspiratorial figure as a result, go figure.

How do you use chemical weapons and not have a major risk of it hitting civilians? These weapons aren't exactly limited to killing just soldiers or terrorist. That is why we don't use them, and certainly not in civilian areas.

 

[Kephar]

You, just like Trump, are throwing diplomacy out with the bathwater. Of course bombing Assad's assets and weapons is a good idea by itself, especially because of the heinous acts committed in the last couple of weeks. If Syria were in a political bubble I'd condone it, too.

But diplomacy is what you're forgetting. It's the invisible spiderweb that reaches across the whole globe and connects all nations and countries. Pluck a thread here and your actions have far-reaching consequences, far beyond the thread you plucked (which you could pluck for totally sound reasons).

By doing this Trump just majorly compromised relations with Russia, Turkey, etc, etc.

Yes, bombing chemical weapon/military assets is a good thing to do, but not in the world's tightest diplomatic hot spot. Probably the densest diplomatic part of the web right now.

I wouldn't worry too much about relations with Russia and Turkey. Trump will appease them by giving Ukraine to Russia and throwing some bones towards Turkey.

Trump doesn't care anything about Ukraine and loves oil so he would love to trade eastern Europe for the middle east (and that's not even taking into account his deep ties to Russia/Turkey).

 

[FreedomFighter]

Well Trump made it seem like his action was to prevent further attacks. in other words, he considered the base an imminent threat to civilians.

This is what gets me... We just had a bad couple weeks in Raqqa and Mosul. One of our airstrikes killed what, an estimated ~200 people? No fanfare, muted media response, inevitable "wait for investigation", etc.

And then suddenly this happens in Idlib and we get emergency UNSC meetings, tons of media coverage and fanfare, and now direct US action.

Aside from the duplicitousness... this shit just seems so off.

 

[Mully]

I always find it amusing to see the true conspiracy theorists of the forum, not realize they're being used in an actual conspiracy to muddy the water surrounding Syria's gas attacks in 2013, and now.

There's certainly cognitive dissonance at play, but here they are, in the real McCoy of conspiracy theories and they're unable to recognize it because for the past 10 years, they've unknowingly peddled the SVR's FUD.

Sorry Meus, but you're being used as a patsy to spread propaganda again. Syria used chemical weapons on its own people again because Assad is desperate to stay in power.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Why does Syria use chemicals in the first place, no matter against who?

Cos they don't care about collateral?

The problem with Gas weapons (and one reason why they are banned) is that "purposefully attacking" doesn't work, especially in cities.

Exactly. It's only purpose would be to terrorise people and murder them. If you had the "enemy" embedded in populated areas, and you decide to use gas regardless (instead of bombs), it is because you want everyone in that area to suffer a terrible death.

We've seen Syrian airplanes drop cluster bombs in the shape of canisters on streets. Assad and his generals could care less about collateral. But using gas, as you say, serves no purpose other than to act as some kind of brutal punishment, like Saddam inflicted upon the Kurds.

Wouldn't Daesh have claimed it?

Although Daesh often claims credit for attacks, I don't think I've seen them claim credit for a gas attack in Syria, or Iraq which there have been reports of. I could be wrong, but I've yet to see such reports. What we do know of instances where they have used is that a large number of people suffered horrible injuries and deaths.

 

[ultratruman]

This is what gets me... We just had a bad couple weeks in Raqqa and Mosul. One of our airstrikes killed what, an estimated ~200 people? No fanfare, muted media response, inevitable "wait for investigation", etc.

And then suddenly this happens in Idlib and we get emergency UNSC meetings, tons of media coverage and fanfare, and now direct US action.

Aside from the duplicitousness... this shit just seems so off.

This airbase strike is the first time that the US has conducted military action against the Syrian military. It leaves a lot of questions as to what comes next, and how Russia and Assad will respond. That's why it's so important.

 

[BocoDragon]

I was here in 2013 asking similar questions about the circumstances. I don't question whether chemicals were used, but rather whether they used to specifically target civilians: something that any reasonable person would question, especially considering the regime was threatened with military action by Western powers.

I appreciate the consistency. Just know that there are people on social media right now who seem to have been born yesterday and don't know anything about the Syrian conflict who are also claiming its a false flag. I dunno, because Trump/America is now involved? You can be an ahistorical idiot and claiming exactly what you are claiming, but I can at least appreciate that you have a consistent history of deep skepticism towards this particular conflict.

I want to be certain in my own mind, before accepting and agreeing to a war, of the details - details which hardly anyone knows or understands for that matter. There are people here who have accepted it purely on the pretext that Assad, a man who has led his country into a brutal war with little regard to his own people, has done the exact thing that would give the US a moral justification to launch a war. After Iraq, I need more than coincidence or vague reporting - which is what we have here.

Personally, I'm skeptical as to the justification of war and I'm certainly wary of Trump's war. Insofar as this drags us into war, I don't like it at all. I don't want Trump to use war to preserve power at all.

But my reading of recent history is that Assad is a shitstain, a typical Middle East strongman of which there have been many, and taking his gas attack at face value doesn't stretch my credulity at all.

If people think Assad is some innocent false flag patsy just because they're suddenly paying attention to Trump, that makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Because I'd have issues with Assad even in a world where America didn't have a thing to do with this. Crooks like Assad are a dime a dozen in history.

Think: if you were Trump and you were manufacturing a war, you'd want a war that preserved your allies. This isn't it! Isolationist "America First" conservative base? Bye. Russian alliance? Bye. Or is this the "deep state" undermining Trump? Who can tell. Every single direction of history could be a conspiracy if your squint your eyes....

 

[ClosingADoor]

Cos they don't care about collateral?

This argument undermines your whole previous statement about why Assad would use chemicals though.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Germany and France : " No immediate retaliation is needed after the strikes " (AL Arabia)

Who should I believe France? Hollande or your official spokesperson?

 

[Joni]

I am still sceptical about the circumstances behind the sarin deaths. It does not make sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons once much less twice but everyone has accepted it on the pretext that Assad sprays chemical warfare routinely, cos reasons.

Bullshit.

Alternatively, they do this a lot and we just get proof on an inconsistent basis.

 

[SomTervo]

Turkey actually praised the bombing. But yea, I agree with post

I've read really complex things about Turkey's position on the whole thing, perhaps I'm misremembering it. Like, I swear I read they support Assad (because of the Kurdish rebels thing)?

Diplomacy proving itself the tangled spiderweb

I wouldn't worry too much about relations with Russia and Turkey. Trump will appease them by giving Ukraine to Russia and throwing some bones towards Turkey.

Trump doesn't care anything about Ukraine and loves oil so he would love to trade eastern Europe for the middle east (and that's not even taking into account his deep ties to Russia/Turkey).

A Russian spokesperson has already come out saying it's a problem - is that just classic postmodern political posturing?

 

[neurosisxeno]

I feel a little out of my depth commenting on this without much more reading, but I really don't get some of the WW3 posts, or the deflection around chemical weapons like there isn't something that needs to be done. Then again all the weird ass false flag comments from Trump supporters and some Democrats is only making me even more confused.

So most of the western world has wanted to depose Assad since this Civil War started. The problem was he is a close ally of Putin and Russia, and generally speaking China wasn't big on the idea of NATO overthrowing another middle eastern government. So Russia joined in to fight the Islamic State in Syria, but "inadvertently" kept bombing the living hell out of Syrian Rebels. Russia was even helping the Assad Regime try to cover up what he did, their government was claiming the chemical weapons belongs to the rebels and were collateral damage from a Russian air strike.

Unsurprisingly the Democrats under Obama wanted to get involved but were criticized by the Republicans. So Obama was really passive in his handling of Syria. This isn't even the first time Assad has used Chemical Weapons, by my count I think it's the 3rd. But people like John McCain, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and various Republicans didn't care and said we shouldn't contribute to destabilizing Syria--basically being okay with Assad remaining in power. Shit, like a day or two before the Chemical Weapons attack, Rex Tillerson basically said the US was going to stay out of it, which gave Assad the idea that he could do what he wanted.

The WW3 rhetoric is rooted in the idea that the US and NATO would invade Syria to overthrow Assad, then Russia and China would band together to fight with Assad, and we're in another World War. I seriously doubt that since the evidence now backs the idea that Assad once again used Chemical Weapons on civilians, and it's hard to imagine China allying itself with a country like that. They may saber-rattle often, but they're not stupid.

 

[Jezbollah]

You, just like Trump, are throwing diplomacy out with the bathwater. Of course bombing Assad's assets and weapons is a good idea by itself, especially because of the heinous acts committed in the last couple of weeks. If Syria were in a political bubble I'd condone it, too.

But diplomacy is what you're forgetting. It's the invisible spiderweb that reaches across the whole globe and connects all nations and countries. Pluck a thread here and your actions have far-reaching consequences, far beyond the thread you plucked (which you could pluck for totally sound reasons).

By doing this Trump just majorly compromised relations with Russia, Turkey, etc, etc.

Yes, bombing chemical weapon/military assets is a good thing to do, but not in the world's tightest diplomatic hot spot. Probably the densest diplomatic part of the web right now.

What has diplomacy achieved here? Between the years this conflict has been going on and the China and Russian Vetos at the UN security council?

I'd love to see your idea of diplomacy being effective, but the simple fact is that it's failed even before Trump became president.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

What exactly were the suspected motives behind the chemical attacks? Im not trying to play devils advocate or anything, I genuinely just want to try to understand the situation more.

 

[Joel Was Right]

This argument undermines your whole previous statement about why Assad would use chemicals though.

How do you use chemical weapons and not have a major risk of it hitting civilians? These weapons aren't exactly limited to killing just soldiers or terrorist. That is why we don't use them, and certainly not in civilian areas.

This is my assessment of it: sarin was used with no regard to civilians in the area. I think I should clarify that: my scepticism was on the idea that civilians are being purposefully targeted by the regime with chemical weapons.

 

[FreedomFighter]

This airbase strike is the first time that the US has conducted military action against the Syrian military. It leaves a lot of questions as to what comes next, and how Russia and Assad will respond. That's why it's so important.

@ bolded, not quite, they bombed SAA at Dier Ezhor several months ago.

The Russians mum on the situation so far as far as I know (aside from condemning the strikes).

I'm scared about this escalating.

 

[SomTervo]

What has diplomacy achieved here? Between the years this conflict has been going on and the China and Russian Vetos at the UN security council?

I'd love to see your idea of diplomacy being effective, but the simple fact is that it's failed even before Trump became president.

I'm not saying diplomacy is effective. Never said that.

I'm saying diplomacy is a loaded gun. If you're not careful with it, things get worse.

A horrible realisation is that diplomacy isn't some "polite exercise in compromise" – it's everyone being careful (/being terrified) of pissing other people off and ruining relations between nations. It's an exercise in caution, not "a good thing" in and of itself. A perfect storm of bad/convoluted diplomacy can lead to big problems: trade embargos, wars (it's the whole reason WWI started), etc.

The point is that, regardless of whether their core intentions were good or not, Trump's administration have been woeful at diplomacy, throwing out provokative statements in all directions and often contradicting their own members of staff. It makes the US look untrustworthy to everyone on the planet while also pissing off far reaching big powers with actions like this one.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This is my assessment of it: sarin was used with no regard to civilians in the area. I think I should clarify that: my scepticism was on the idea that civilians are being purposefully targeted by the regime with chemical weapons.

I don't see how that is of much relevance here. If you agree that chemical weapons are used, it doesn't matter if they target civilians with it or not. The things are banned and shouldn't be used.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I'm saying diplomacy is a loaded gun. If you're not careful with it, things get worse.

Case in point; Rex Tillerson. His passive statement on Syria could very easily have given Assad the idea that we don't care what he does. His non-statement on North Korea's ballistic missile test was an absolute joke as well. The guy sucks at his job--badly.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

This is what gets me... We just had a bad couple weeks in Raqqa and Mosul. One of our airstrikes killed what, an estimated ~200 people? No fanfare, muted media response, inevitable "wait for investigation", etc.

And then suddenly this happens in Idlib and we get emergency UNSC meetings, tons of media coverage and fanfare, and now direct US action.

Aside from the duplicitousness... this shit just seems so off.

Thats because they were "humanely" killed, with weapons that had billions spent on them in order to do so.

Sarin gas tho? Everyone will fucking turn their heads and condemn it. Aint that ironic?

 

[Sunster]

I've read really complex things about Turkey's position on the whole thing, perhaps I'm misremembering it. Like, I swear I read they support Assad (because of the Kurdish rebels thing)?

Diplomacy proving itself the tangled spiderweb



A Russian spokesperson has already come out saying it's a problem - is that just classic postmodern political posturing?

Yea I'm sure Turkey is split. I've been watching BBC all day and their official position along with China's is basically "good work"

 

[spineduke]

Thats because they were "humanely" killed, with weapons that had billions spent on them in order to do so.

Sarin gas tho? Everyone will fucking turn their heads and condemn it. Aint that ironic?

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between normalizing conventional weapon use and chemical weapons?

 

[SomTervo]

Yea I'm sure Turkey is split. I've been watching BBC all day and their official position along with China's is basically "good work"

 

[JuanLatino]

Thats because they were "humanely" killed, with weapons that had billions spent on them in order to do so.

Sarin gas tho? Everyone will fucking turn their heads and condemn it. Aint that ironic?

funny how they did support it in the past, when it was for their use. i guess condemming depends on foe or ally status.

 

[Liha]

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between normalizing conventional weapon use and chemical weapons?

There is no difference, the people are dead and thousands are fleeing.

 

[Joni]

Thats because they were "humanely" killed, with weapons that had billions spent on them in order to do so.

Sarin gas tho? Everyone will fucking turn their heads and condemn it. Aint that ironic?

There is no difference, the people are dead and thousands are fleeing.

It suffocates you by paralyzing your lungs. For like 10 minutes before you're dead.

Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms.

 

[Audioboxer]

So most of the western world has wanted to depose Assad since this Civil War started. The problem was he is a close ally of Putin and Russia, and generally speaking China wasn't big on the idea of NATO overthrowing another middle eastern government. So Russia joined in to fight the Islamic State in Syria, but "inadvertently" kept bombing the living hell out of Syrian Rebels. Russia was even helping the Assad Regime try to cover up what he did, their government was claiming the chemical weapons belongs to the rebels and were collateral damage from a Russian air strike.

Unsurprisingly the Democrats under Obama wanted to get involved but were criticized by the Republicans. So Obama was really passive in his handling of Syria. This isn't even the first time Assad has used Chemical Weapons, by my count I think it's the 3rd. But people like John McCain, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and various Republicans didn't care and said we shouldn't contribute to destabilizing Syria--basically being okay with Assad remaining in power. Shit, like a day or two before the Chemical Weapons attack, Rex Tillerson basically said the US was going to stay out of it, which gave Assad the idea that he could do what he wanted.

The WW3 rhetoric is rooted in the idea that the US and NATO would invade Syria to overthrow Assad, then Russia and China would band together to fight with Assad, and we're in another World War. I seriously doubt that since the evidence now backs the idea that Assad once again used Chemical Weapons on civilians, and it's hard to imagine China allying itself with a country like that. They may saber-rattle often, but they're not stupid.

Thanks for the history snippet and some reasoning. I know Russia is behind some serious atrocities in the regions. I guess I just didn't expect such a blow up from what looks like a relatively low-key attack by the US. Has any intelligence briefing confirmed it was an air site used for chemical attacks? If so I can't really fault the US hitting it. I know some of the hyperbole is minds jumping 3,000 miles ahead and saying "what next?!". Right now nothing is next for the US other than to continue monitoring I guess? I certainly do not see WW3 like many on the internet seem to be shouting about.

Without a doubt, some of the scenes, pictures, videos and news covering of the last few weeks will be causing reactionary moves. Such is global politics, though.